S.Helen Mary v. B.Nagaraj

Crl.OP No.24581 of 2024 in Crl.A SR No.50257 of 2024 Crl.O.P.No.24581 of 2024 in Crl.A SR.No.50257 of 2024 SUNDER MOHAN, J.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the respondent had not denied the signature in the cheque and also the fact of handing over the cheque to the petitioner, the trial court had erroneously held that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt and that the evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner would show that the petitioner had established that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt.

2. The points raised in the above appeal requires consideration and hence this court is inclined to grant leave. Accordingly, leave granted.

3. Registry is directed to number the appeal and post for admission, if it is otherwise in order.

08.01.2025 rgr 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP No.24581 of 2024 in Crl.A SR No.50257 of 2024 SUNDER MOHAN, J.

rgr Crl.O.P.No.24581 of 2024 in Crl.A SR.No.50257 of 2024 08.01.2025 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis